[anonsec] 3401 and highjacking
touch at ISI.EDU
Fri Feb 24 10:00:08 PST 2006
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 06:18:23PM -0500, Stephen Kent wrote:
>>My recollection from the BOF was that only some of the cited
>>motivations for BTNS explicitly cite transport layer protection. When
>>applications want to use lower layer security mechanisms to enable
>>higher performance via off-loading crypto to a different processor,
>>that can be achieved via SSL/TLS, for example.
> Yes, that's my motivation.
We probably agree on that, but it's not a motivation for BTNS. BTNS is a
good place to develop a particular channel binding variant, but that
doesn't seem like a motivation.
>>I think the crux of our possible disagreement is that you see every
>>BTNS motivation as demanding protection for the transport layer
>>protocol, whole I see only one of cited motivations as emphasizing
> We must be converging -- your disagreements with either Joe or myself
> are more and more matters of degree :)
Agreed on the last point, but it would be useful to understand these
just a bit further, again as they may need to be incorporated into the P&AS.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the ANONSEC